Sub-classification under SC-ST: The Constitution Bench of 7 judges of the Supreme Court has given a majority decision that the state government can create sub-categories among the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The seven-judge bench has overturned the decision of 5 judges given in the EV Chinnaiya case in 2004. In that decision given in 2004, the Supreme Court had said that sub-categories cannot be created among SC/ST tribes. The Chief Justice said that sub-classification of Scheduled Castes and Tribes does not violate Article 14, because these sub-classes have not been excluded from the list.
The decision was given by a majority of 6:1
A seven-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, by a 6:1 majority, ruled that states can be allowed to make sub-classifications in Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) to ensure that more backward castes within these groups are given reservation. The majority verdict said that sub-classification by states should be justified on the basis of parameters and data.
The bench comprised Justice B R Gavai, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Bela M. Trivedi, Justice Pankaj Mithal, Justice Manoj Mishra and Justice Satish Chandra Mishra. The bench was hearing 23 petitions, the main petition of which was filed by the Punjab government challenging the 2010 decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The CJI wrote the judgment on behalf of himself and Justice Mishra. Four judges wrote their respective judgments while Justice Gavai gave a separate judgment.
- ‘I would have got respect in the monastery, I did not come here to do a job’, Yogi said in the assembly
- Fake name, paper identity, 11 times UPSC exam… this is how Pooja Khedkar lost her job as an officer!
- Not only Haniya but Hamas military chief Daif was also eliminated, Israel made a big claim
- What mistake has the BJP government committed by demolishing the platform built for this leader’s statue in Gorakhpur?
- This 7 month pregnant player is doing fencing
This decision was given in 2004
On February 8, the Supreme Court had reserved its verdict on a batch of petitions seeking review of the E V Chinnaiah judgment. The apex court had ruled in 2004 that the SC communities, which have suffered exclusion, discrimination and humiliation for centuries, represent a homogeneous class which cannot be sub-classified. The apex court is hearing a matter seeking reconsideration of the 2004 five-judge Constitution bench verdict in E V Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh, which had held that SCs and STs are homogeneous groups. According to the verdict, therefore, the state cannot proceed with the classification within SCs and STs to provide quotas within quotas to the more disadvantaged and vulnerable castes within these groups.
What did the Supreme Court say
The Supreme Court said that there is nothing in Articles 15, 16 that prevents the state from sub-classifying a caste. The basis of sub-classification should be based on the correct data of the state, in this case the state cannot act at its own will. The court said that however, despite reservation, people of the lower class have difficulty in leaving their profession. Justice BR Gavai cited BR Ambedkar’s speech on the need for social democracy.
Mention of SC creamy layer
Justice Gavai said that it is the duty of the state to give priority to backward communities, only a few people from the SC/ST category are taking advantage of reservation. The ground reality cannot be denied that there are categories within SC/ST that have been facing oppression for centuries. The basis of sub-classification is that one group among a larger group faces more discrimination. Justice Gavai said that it would be unfair to compare the children of the creamy layer (affluent class) of the Scheduled Caste with the children of a Scheduled Caste person who carries scavenger in the village.
Justice Bela Trivedi’s separate opinion
Out of the seven-member bench, Justice Bela Trivedi gave a different opinion from the majority decision. She wrote in her decision that I have a different opinion from the majority decision. I do not agree with the way the three-judge bench sent this matter to the larger bench. The three-judge bench did so without giving any reason. However, the Supreme Court has ruled by a majority of 6-1 that the states have the power to make sub-classifications in Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for reservation.